Minerals Plan: Key Issues & Options

Responses

With the possible exception of some prominent historic buildings, the
demand for building stone cannot be set by reference to particular
buildings or settlements. This approach is simply too restrictive and
doesn't allow the operator to respond to market demand, nor does it take
account of any 'new build' requirements. The building stone market is
fluid and subject to change depending upon fashion and the requirements
of architects, developers, builders and local authorities. Option 2
should allow sufficient flexibility to be built in to reflect this.

We favour Option 1 but are aware that the evidence base for this is
likely to be insufficient at the current time (unless work by the
strategic stone study project by English Heritage and DCC is further
forward than we are aware?). However we would only favour identifying
specific sites that would meet clear need criteria in relation to
supplying key local and regional restoration, repair and new build
projects commensurate with maintaining an enhancing rural built
vernacular. In the absence of Option 1, we would be supportive of a more
general, criteria led policy.

Our preference is for Option 2, with appropriate criteria, as this is
more flexible by not restricting extraction to known quarries. The
important building stones should be identified and appropriately
safeguarded. Ian Thomas's (National Stone Centre)study in the context of
the national Strategic Stone Study makes an important contribution to
the understanding of this resource in Derbyshire.

The best approach would be a mix of Option 1 & Option 2. Option 1
would allow DCC do identify in more detail exactly what types of stone
are available at specific quarries and which settlements or development
proposals within the county might utilise the stone. This presumably
would offer some certainty and consistency to developers and the
conservation sector. Option 2 would allow a degree of necessary
flexibility in that quarry operators would be able to meet any
fluctuations in market demand.

It is suggested that a two stage approach is adopted. Firstly, one
based on Option 1 where such existing quarries are identified; and
secondly a criteria based approach to any other quarries that come
forward and where a particular need and case can be justified.

A combination of Options 1 & 2 would appear to provide the most
balanced approach. The two options could compliment each other, with the
elements of Option 1 ensuring that outputs from specific quarries can be
earmarked to meet conservation objectives; whilst elements of Option 2
would provide a more flexible and ‘future proof’ approach,
to accommodate the needs for stone of a specific character as the need arises.

Option 1 would be difficult to pursue in terms of specific allocations
although it could be possible in a limited number of locations e.g.
Hardwick Hall Quarry, in the case of other potential sources there could
be difficulties in establishing the workability/viability of operations
and thus of demonstrating that these sites could be brought forward. A
more practicable approach would seem to be to establish appropriate
safeguarding policies for building and roofing stone and formulate
policy criteria for the assessment of applications.